"Advocating immigration does not promote liberty. The two are not connected. There is no evidence that opening one's borders improves the liberty situation. Stop believing this"This statement is clearly false, on a whole pile of axes.
- Immigrants are indeed human beings. If you count the impact on the immigrant as having zero moral weight, this is true, and it's morally crippled. If, on the other hand, you actually care even a little bit about other human beings outside your tribe, the statement is insane. Freedom is heavily purchased by rich countries. Roughly all the rich countries are massively more free than all the poor countries, and it appears that the cause of the freedom is the wealth. As countries get wealthier, they buy more liberty (just like they buy more clean water, and more of everything else good.) The move from Mexico to the USA is massive uptick in the freedom of the immigrant himself...and a negligible effect on the freedom of anyone else. And Mexico is only a moderately poor, moderately unfree country. Ghana, contrarily loses every freedom contest you can find. You already have to accept that only the ingroup counts for this statement to even be conceivable. Otherwise, it's blatantly obvious that immigration is the biggest easy expansion of human liberty available to humankind at the moment. Not least because "Restrictions on human movement are by far the most universal restriction on human liberty that’s socially acceptable today." Really, this is a sufficient argument. But...there's a lot more.
- Wealth matters, even outside the country. The immigration of someone from a poor country to a rich country changes their income & wealth by a factor of between 2 and 100. My departure from pure standard leftish libertarianism is to point out that whatever you care about liberty-wise...wealth is the best way to get there. Any real increase in individual wealth is a de-facto increase in liberty. Wealth is indeed the only social metric we need to measure for darn near any purpose. Given that immigrants increase massively in wealth, natives increase mildly in wealth, and low-skilled natives have unclear but very small impacts given immigrants...this is a big deal.
- Immigration decreases welfare as a fraction of GDP. Caplan, responding to Tino (My favorite anti-immigrationist ) cites the actual studies on immigration numbers:
(a) Almost everyone assumes that immigration increases the size of the welfare state; (b) AGS identified a mechanism going in the opposite direction; and (c) AGS showed that on international data, the net effect of diversity on the welfare state is indeed negative. There is a -.66 bivariate correlation between social spending as a percent of GDP and racial fragmentation, and this relationship persists controlling for per-capita income, region, and age distribution.That's a pretty big impact. More immigrants leads to smaller welfare states, as folks don't want to spend their money on people who aren't like them. It's part of why homogenous Sweden is all-welfare, all the time, and ethnically and linguistically diverse Switzerland has little. More immigration = less welfare state, statistically. Is that a pro-liberty move? And you can't even object to the study in a standard anti-academic fashion, because the economists who study this stuff are, to the extent they are cathedralists, both pro-welfare and pro-immigration, so this study opposes their natural worldview.
- Immigrants don't vote against freedom. The theory that immigrants vote against liberty in a democracy appears to have been tested, and found to be false...despite a whole lot of assuming that it does.
- Non-rich opinions and votes don't actually matter for policy. And even if that's how they voted...it appears that doesn't matter. Turns out that the opinions and preferences of the poor and the middle class have no impact whatsoever on US policy. Even if the poor immigrants tried to vote pro-welfare, it turns out that the system appears to be rigged to only respond to the desires of the rich. How surprising that the cronyism is working as designed.
Immigration massively increases liberty. Probably more so than any other political activity you could choose. Maybe ending the drug war would be competitive, but probably not. The idea that immigration doesn't impact liberty in a massively positive direction is either ignorance, or cheating in what you score.